The artist rendering is better at generating interest in the concept/project. It really could be lovely and helpful.

Some buildings are partially underwater but they don’t tell you that.. I know a few buildings they’ve had to replace the bottom of the elevators because water underneath the building eroded the elevator. A few of the parking garages are also starting to sink.

> "It's a network of floating marsh mats. They are interconnected and in the near shore environment off the coast… of cities and coastal environments and they work to both the physical mats themselves and the forces between the mats, through their connected mooring system, dampen the wave energy as they approach the shoreline," explains Louiza Wise.

I don’t doubt that these work on paper, but I question how they work in practice?

A few enormous questions unanswered by this article:

• Boston Harbor itself doesn’t need them. Boston isn’t Scituate, we have a small harbor and an array of islands that already dampen wave energy. The only chop you see in Boston Harbor is from idiot motor-boaters violating the no wake zone.

• Areas in Massachusetts that do face the full brunt of a Nor’Easter are almost all beaches. It’s almost impossible to get wind turbines approved a half dozen miles offshore because it could obscure their precious views, and now you want to litter their coast with a bunch of man mad floating putting greens?

• if they were allowed and welcomed, how these work physically. With our tidal range of 10’-0” or so the amount of slack on the chain would have to account for that and a decent tidal surge (so they’re not bobbing below the surface) every time the wind and tide shifts these would all move, and being soo close together, some may foul each other and tangle. Who fixes that?

If these were installed on the harbor, especially in Charlestown like shown on the tendering, they’d mostly just collect trash floating in the harbor. Not at all a bad thing necessarily but probably not worth the money.